« Ind. Decisions - More on: "Indiana court lets sex offender park ban stand" | Main | Environment - More on: IDEM meetings introduce new antidegradation rules »

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Ind. Courts - "Priest abuse case hinges on "repressed" memories"

The ILB had this most recent entry Jan. 25th on former Catholic priest Harry Monroe. Now a trial is taking place before Judge David Dryer of Marion Superior Court, Civil 10. Yesterday the Indianapolis Star reporter Robert King wrote in a Star blog:

John Doe RG, as he is known in court papers, doesn't have much room for God in his life these days. It wasn't always so.

As an altar boy at St. Andrew Catholic Church in Indianapolis in the 1970s, he and his family were deeply involved in the church. But John Doe RG lost that somewhere along the way. For a long time he didn't now where. But he says it found out the reason why in 2003, when -- during a session with his therapist -- he began recovering memories about sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of priest Harry Monroe.

Today, in a sterile courtroom in Indianapolis, John Doe RG spent two hours listening to legal arguments about whether abuse that is more than 30-years-old can be addressed in a lawsuit -- long after the normal statute of limitations have expired -- because the victim's memories had been "repressed" until recently.

Today's legal debate focused squarely on this question of whether some trauma victims, such as those sexually victimized by priests, really can lose access to their memories of the abuse for long periods of time, and then recover them later, as John Doe RG says happened to him.

Judge David Dreyer, who is hearing the case, said he will need at least a month to make a decision. But the case can't go forward unless he allows testimony about repressed memory to be heard -- it is the only way John Doe RG can comply with the statute of limitations.

Dreyer asked the lawyers to provide him more information about the relationship between the term "dissociative amnesia," which is listed in the psychiatrist's desk reference, and "repressed memory," which is not.

In the past, Indiana courts have allowed cases based on repressed memories to go forward. But Archdiocese of Indianapolis attorney Jay Mercer argued the concept of "repressed memory" is "psychiatric folklore," in the words of critics he cited. He said many experts believe that memories never really go away, but that trauma victims either choose to forget or they simply haven't been reminded of it. In those and other instances, Mercer argued, that shouldn't justify any leeway when it comes to the statute of limitations.

Attorney Pat Noaker, arguing for John Doe RG, said the terms repressed memory and dissociative amnesia are essentially interchangeable. And he argued that it wasn't necessary for Dreyer to decide the validity of repressed memory testimony because the Indiana Supreme Court had twice deemed it valid.

Today the Star has this brief, unsigned article:
The lawyer representing a man who claims to have been abused by a priest 33 years ago needs to sort out psychiatric terminology he's banking on as a reason to allow a suit long after the normal statute of limitations expired, Judge David Dreyer said Friday.

The plaintiff, named in papers as John Doe RG, is a former altar boy at St. Andrew's Catholic Church. He said memories of his abuse by former priest Harry Monroe first emerged in 2003.
Advertisement

Attorney Pat Noaker contends the Indiana Supreme Court has already decided that old cases can go forward when brought after a victim recovers a long "repressed memory" of abuse.

But Jay Mercer, the attorney for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, said there is debate among experts about the scientific validity of repressed memories.

Noaker said the term "dissociative amnesia," which appears in the psychiatrist's desk reference, is essentially the same as "repressed memory," which does not. Mercer argues they are different.

The issue is important to Dreyer, who said acceptance in the desk reference would be one simple way of deciding the credibility of the science and whether to allow testimony.

Dreyer gave both sides three weeks to present written arguments on the point. He expects to decide within a month or so whether the case can go to trial.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 22, 2009 01:58 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts